Patent interference proceeding. Board awarded priority to senior party, and junior party appealed. Court affirmed, finding that the junior party’s bench tests had not established an actual reduction to practice. The invention at issue was a screw-actuated potentiometric device. The court found the standard in this case to be “whether the bench tests and other evidence demonstrate that {the junior party’s} device, as constructed, was capable of successfully achieving at least one contemplated use so it may be regarded as reduced to practice.†Id. at 1006. Thus, the court stated that “{i}t is, of course, well settled that when an interference count does not specify any particular use, evidence proving substantial utility for any purpose is sufficient to establish reduction to practice. Blicke v. Treves, 241 F.2d 718, 44 CCPA 753. Like the board, however, we regard the present record to be substantially incomplete with respect to evidence of successful testing of a potentiometer . . . under conditions normally encountered in at least one contemplated use.†Id. at 1006-07.
Excerpts and Summaries
Created
Tuesday 28 of October, 2008 13:23:22 GMT by Unknown
LastModif
Tuesday 28 of October, 2008 13:23:22 GMT by Unknown